primary-plan-recommender

Compares multiple study-route options for the same biomedical research question and recommends one primary plan, while explicitly explaining why alternative routes are secondary, premature, weaker, or dependency-heavy. Always use this skill when the user already has a reasonably defined question but is unsure which main study route should anchor the project. Focus on plan comparison, route selection, dependency awareness, and primary-plan justification rather than full protocol drafting.

Quality

79%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./awesome-med-research-skills/Protocol Design/primary-plan-recommender/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The content is well-structured with strong progressive disclosure and a clear, actionable workflow supported by real reference modules. The main weakness is redundancy across the Core Function, Decision Logic, Hard Rules, and trigger-example sections, which inflates the token budget without adding guidance value.

Suggestions

Collapse the overlapping Core Function, Decision Logic, and Hard Rules sections into a single sequenced workflow to remove restated guidance and reduce tokens.

Merge the duplicate trigger examples (the Sample Triggers section and the Input Validation examples) into one list of natural-language triggers.

Add one brief worked example showing the expected A-J output for a representative comparison, which would raise actionability without much added length.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly efficient but carries redundant material — the Core Function list overlaps the Decision Logic steps, Hard Rules restate the "should not" sections, and natural-language trigger examples appear twice (Sample Triggers and Input Validation) — that could be tightened without losing clarity.	3 / 5
Actionability	It provides concrete, executable guidance: an enumerated set of route families, a 10-step decision sequence, a mandatory A-J output structure, and a per-section reference-module map, with only minor gaps such as the absence of a worked end-to-end comparison example.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The 10-step sequence is clearly ordered and mapped to both reference modules and output sections, with quality gates like step 3 (removing superficially plausible routes) and Hard Rule 15 (incomplete unless rejection logic is shown); it lacks explicit validation checkpoints but the task is analytical rather than destructive.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	SKILL.md functions as a well-signaled overview pointing one level deep into nine real reference files, each mapped to a specific output section with "use when" guidance, and all referenced paths were verified to exist in the bundle.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific, clearly scoped, and explicitly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with a strong trigger clause and a distinct niche. It could still add a few more everyday synonyms a user might naturally say, but it is otherwise high quality.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain and several concrete actions ("Compares multiple study-route options," "recommends one primary plan," "explaining why alternative routes are secondary, premature, weaker, or dependency-heavy") with only minor coverage gaps, fitting the 'lists several specific actions' anchor above the 3-level.	4 / 5
Completeness	It clearly answers both what (compares/recommends routes and justifies rejection) and when ("Always use this skill when the user already has a reasonably defined question but is unsure which main study route should anchor the project") with concrete trigger phrasing, matching the top anchor exactly.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage with natural terms like "study-route options," "primary plan," "route selection," and "plan comparison," but it omits some everyday synonyms a user would actually say (e.g. "which study path" or "main route"), placing it just below the comprehensive 5 anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	It carves a clear niche (study-route comparison and primary-plan selection) with an explicit out-of-scope boundary ("rather than full protocol drafting"), giving it distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with adjacent research skills.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: aipoch/medical-research-skills
Path: awesome-med-research-skills/Protocol Design/primary-plan-recommender/SKILL.md
Commit: f5ef65b

Reviewed: ~17 hours ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.